mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us said:
> Rom. 12:14-15 -
> EULOGEITE TOUS DIWKONTAS,
> EULOGEITE KAI MH KATAPASQE.
> CAIREIN META CAIRONTWN,
> KLAIEIN META KLAIONTWN.
> I guess my precise question is this, "How do the infinitives fit into
> the flow of Paul's thought here in Rom. 9-21?" Why not just continue
> with the participles?
I think I have the answer now. (Although I'm not sure whether anyone
else does seeing how this thread has taken off--that's a joke, honest
:-) I've appreciated the responses I've gotten.
Rom 12:9-21 forms a chiastic discourse.
Vs 9 Good vs Evil vs 21
(for lack of a better
way to put it.)
10 Initiate Love 20
11 Slave relationship to God 19
12 Proper response to circumstances 17-18
13 Proper response to things 16
14 Imperatives to bless others
15 Imperative Infinitives to rejoice and weep.
Versus 14 & 15 form the CHI with CAIREIN META CAIRONTWN, KLAIEIN
META KLAIONTWN being the height of Paul's excitement; I can just
hear his emotion in those Greek infinitives. "!!To rejoice with
those who rejoice!! !!To weep with those who weep!!" The eloquence
is beautiful.
A couple of things I find really neat about this:
1) The substantive/adjective pairs that occur in verses 9-13. This
is initially what muddled me regarding the infinitives. It wasn't
till I diagrammed the entire passage in Greek that the chiastic nature
slowly came to the surface. I couldn't accept Jim's explanation
of breaking the monotony; Paul had just used 11 adjectival words
(either adjectives or verbal adjectives), why would he change in
verse 15 to a verbal noun? Now I understand. Or at least think
I do. :-)
2) Verse 16 wasn't clear at all. I kept bouncing back and forth
between the Greek and the ASV muttering, "What *is* he talking about?"
TO AUTO EIS ALLHLOUS FRONOUNTES, MH TA hUYHLA FRONOUNTES ALLA TOIS
TAPEINOIS WUNAPAGOMENOI. MH GINESQE FRONIMOI PAR' hEAUTOIS.
Again, it wasn't till I diagrammed the Greek and a went through a
process of elimination that I understood that verse 16 had to mirror
the thought in verse 13. Then the words: AUTO, hUYHLA, TAPEINOIS,
and hEAUTOIS became clear. At least I think they became clear. :-)
I think they simply refer to things. High minded things, like
caviar, and lobster every Friday; lowly things like rice and chicken.
This mirrored the actions of KOINWNIA and FILOXENIA. We are to
not be snooty with our things, but share. At least that's how I
understand it.
3) It appears that after the elegant, beautifully simple build up of
11 substantive <--> adjective pairs to the apex of the infinitives,
Paul sort of runs out of steam. Verses 16-21 are more complicated,
relatively speaking. It's like Paul searches for a way to let his
hearers down easy after he has flown to close to the sun. There's a
couple of substantive <--> adjective pairs (verse 16) but nothing
like what goes before. If I knew Greek better, perhaps I could
tell whether it is a clumsey landing or a smooth one. Again, this
underscores for me the intensity of the infinitives. No other part
of speech could carry this weight so succinctly. It's just beautiful.
Being a Greek student of little mind (allusion to Winnie the Pooh
again), this is really exciting. Also, if the above analysis is
way off base, please be gentle. I feel like I just bit into a
whole pile o' honey.
I hope you guys don't mind me saying all this. I was originally
hoping for a little pointer that would have sent me in this
direction. I guess it pays to dig. Again, I appreciated the
responses I got.
OK, you guys can go back to what you were talking about, whatever it
was. :-) And thanks!!!
--
Mike Sangrey
mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us